Tough or liberal? Minister's choice will shape transport's future
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE VITAL—but unknown—factor concerning the Transport Bill is: What instructions will the Minister of Transport give Licensing Authorities on quality and quantity licensing. Will they be tough or liberal?
Operators should demand to know what these directives will be. So commented Mr. Peter Thompson (Rank Organization) to a meeting arranged by the TRTA's Central London area on Monday.
The other speakers were Mr. J. P. Wells, Wells and Son (London) Ltd., and Mr. Philip Edwards, editor, Motor Transport, with Mr. Felix Wentworth (Schweppes) presiding as chairman.
Mr. Thompson made these predictions— assuming the Minister does take a liberal approach in her instructions—on the effects of the Bill:
There would be fewer companies operating on their own account and so an enormous expansion in the professional haulage business could be expected. There would be less heavy vehicles on trunk routes but more on cross-country journeys.
In retail distribution where current C licence operation was more efficient than A licence, Mr. Thompson foresaw large cornpanies,with comprehensive systems of warehouses and transport fleets already established, offering these facilities to other companies. There would be many more 16-ton-gross vehicles on the road and the status of the transport manager would be raised.
In addition to the introduction of a transport manager's licence, the increased expenditure inevitable as a result of quality licensing would emphasize the importance of transport to top management. The abolition of the C licence, Mr. Thompson thought, would result in the TRTA becoming the association for distribution.
Mr. Wells, however, did not expect the Bill, when enacted, to be liberally operated; there could be adverse repercussions. The proposal that vehicles under 30cwt should be free of all licensing restrictions could result in an enormous increase in the 900,000 vehicles of this class already on the road. Manufacturers would be encouraged to produce a vehicle in this unladen weight category with a carrying capacity of at least 3 tons in standard or skeletal form. This would be a very useful vehicle for many operators.
Because there was not much traffic to be moved in 20-ton lots there would be a substantial increase in the numbers of 16-ton gross vehicles, whether as four-wheelers or light artics. Mr. Wells forecast that there would be a gradual disappearance of vehicles over 16 tons operated by hauliers, except when fitted with specialized bodywork.
This ultimate lack of platform vehicles in the maximum-load category could prove dangerous for trade and industry because there would then be no alternative service should railway facilities break down for any reason.
Mr. Philip Edwards supported Mr. Wells in his belief that the Bill was likely to be interpreted toughly because its object was to transfer all the traffic possible from road to rail. Only minor concessions were likely as the Bill went through Parliament. In fact there were more restrictions to come. On
every page of the Bill there were provisions to permit the making of still more regulations.
Mr. Edwards wondered how many Clicence operators realized that under the Bill's proposals they could in future lose their licence by making a false estimate of what they proposed to do. But on the credit side transport history showed that every previous attempt to force traffic from rail to road had failed in whatever country it had been tried.
S. BUCKLEY.